Section 8(1)(h) — information that would impede the process of investigation, apprehension, or prosecution of offenders.

Section 24 — the Act does not apply to the intelligence and security organisations listed in the Second Schedule (CBI, IB, RAW, NIA, etc.), except information relating to:

1. Allegations of corruption, or
2. Human-rights violations.

Section 22 — overriding effect of the RTI Act over other secrecy laws.

• Specific impedance, not class exemption. Bhagat Singh v. CIC (Delhi HC 2008) — §8(1)(h) requires demonstrable prejudice to a specific investigation.
• Temporal. Once the investigation closes (chargesheet filed / closure report / case disposed), §8(1)(h) weakens.
• Section 24 carve-back. For corruption and HR violations, the exemption does NOT apply.
• Your own FIR is your own record. Complainant can obtain copy of own FIR under §2(f) + ground in the Code of Criminal Procedure itself.
• Case diaries and witness statements carry heavier protection until closure.

1. Step 1. Identify whether the authority is in the Second Schedule (§24).
2. Step 2. If yes, ask whether the information relates to corruption or HR. If yes, the exemption does not apply; proceed as normal.
3. Step 3. If not a §24 body, assess §8(1)(h) — specific impedance?
4. Step 4. Apply temporal test — is the investigation live, closed, or filed in court?
5. Step 5. Apply §10 severability — redact witness identities, source pointers, investigative methods.
6. Step 6. Issue §11 notice to any identifiable third party (accused, victim, witness) where appropriate.
7. Step 7. Speaking reply with Bhagat Singh citation if declining.

The information sought relates to an ongoing investigation in Case No. XXX registered at [Police Station/Authority]. Disclosure at this stage would [specifically identify] impede the process of investigation, apprehension, or prosecution.

Specifically: [identify the specific impedance — witness identity protection, undisclosed modus operandi, pending custodial interrogation, etc.].

The Delhi High Court in //Bhagat Singh v. CIC// (2008) has held that §8(1)(h) requires specific impedance, not a blanket class exemption. This Office is satisfied that the specific impedance test is met in the present facts.

Section 8(2) balancing has been applied. No larger public interest has been pleaded that would outweigh the harm to the investigation.

Severability under §10: The following elements that can be safely disclosed are enclosed at Annexure A — [list].

A fresh request may be considered upon closure of the investigation / filing of chargesheet.

Yours faithfully,
[PIO block]

The RTI application seeks information relating to alleged corruption at [CBI / NIA / IB / etc.]. The authority named is listed in the Second Schedule. Under the proviso to Section 24, information relating to allegations of corruption and human-rights violations is not exempt.

This Office, as the designated CPIO of the authority, examined the records and furnishes the following: [substantive reply with §10 redactions].

Material that goes beyond the corruption/HR allegation and touches operational intelligence is exempt under §24 and has not been included.

• RTI for copy of own FIR. Disclose.
• RTI for status of criminal case against my neighbour. Disclose chargesheet / closure if filed; decline case-diary under §8(1)(h).
• RTI for CBI enquiry into a public scam. §24 proviso applies — disclose documents relating to corruption; redact operational details.
• RTI for NIA file on a sensitive matter. §24 applies; disclose only if corruption/HR angle exists.
• RTI for post-trial conviction order. Disclose (judgments are public).
• RTI for ex-servicemen pension withhold on “adverse intelligence input”. Section 8(1)(g) + §24 balancing — partial disclosure possible.

• Bhagat Singh v. CIC (Delhi HC 2008) — §8(1)(h) specific impedance.
• Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. CBI (CIC orders) — Section 24 corruption proviso.
• CIC orders on CBI excluded-agency scope — no blanket secrecy.

• Blanket §8(1)(h) refusal citing “investigation” without specific impedance.
• Denying own-FIR requests.
• Citing §24 for corruption matters (the proviso specifically carves this back).
• Not temporally updating — refusing post-closure based on old investigation status.
• Over-redaction that renders the reply meaningless.

• Coordinate with IO. Ask the Investigating Officer in writing whether specific disclosure would impede. Record the response on the file.
• Closure triggers re-assessment. Once chargesheet is filed, earlier §8(1)(h) basis weakens.
• Victim rights. Victim's right to information about the case's progress is increasingly recognised; be generous where victim is applicant.
• Redact witness identities diligently; this is one of the legitimate uses of §10.

Q1. Can a victim get a copy of the chargesheet?
Yes, once filed in court — it's a court document.

Q2. Can a PIO refuse an applicant's own FIR?
No. Own document; disclosable.

Q3. Is CBI wholly outside RTI?
No. Section 24 excludes CBI except for corruption and HR matters.

Q4. What counts as “corruption” under §24 proviso?
Broadly — abuse of office for personal / improper gain. CIC orders have interpreted generously.

Investigation RTIs reward precision. A speaking reply that identifies the specific impedance, applies §24 correctly, and respects the corruption/HR proviso is almost always defensible. Blanket refusals are not.

• Section 8(1)(j) framework
• 10 landmark SC rulings
• 10 landmark HC rulings
• PIO & FAA knowledge base

• RTI Act, 2005, Sections 8(1)(h), 24
• Bhagat Singh v. CIC (Delhi HC 2008)
• CIC orders on CBI / investigation

Last reviewed: 21 April 2026.